Fake DHS "photography license" for fake no-photos laws

All around the world, cops and rent-a-cops are vigorously enforcing nonexistent anti-terrorist bans on photography in public places. If you're worried about being busted under an imaginary law, why not download these templates and print yourself an imaginary "Photography license" from the DHS? Who knows if it's legal to carry one of these -- probably about as legal as taking away your camera and erasing your memory card for snapping a pic on the subway.

In the event you're stopped by overzealous law enforcement or security officials attempting to enforce fictitious laws, I've designed these fictitious and official-looking Photographer's Licenses. If you have Adobe Illustrator, you can download the EPS vector art file and print your own. You'll need a photo of yourself, and OCR (or a similar font) to fill in your personal information.

I’m also in favor of a modified version of this card, one that doesn’t reference any real government entities. #33’s got the right idea. Make it look real, but reference no real body.

I feel that EFF / ACLU “endorsements” would not fool cops, they know who the ACLU is, generally despise them, and wouldn’t care to respect its alleged authority anyways. Furthermore, probably having BoingBoing / EFF / ACLU endorsed passes of some type probably presents a liability problem for these orgs. I don’t want any of them getting in trouble.

So yeah, I have no design skills, but hook me up with a Franklin Mint Photography License if you do!

Whoever, except with the written permission of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, knowingly uses the words â€œFederal Bureau of Investigationâ€ or the initials â€œF.B.I.â€, or any colorable imitation of such words or initials, in connection with any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, in a manner reasonably calculated to convey the impression that such advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet or other publication, play, motion picture, broadcast, telecast, or other production, is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; …

Shall be punished as follows: a corporation, partnership, business trust, association, or other business entity, by a fine under this title; an officer or member thereof participating or knowingly acquiescing in such violation or any individual violating this section, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

I’m also in favor of a modified version of this card, one that doesn’t reference any real government entities. #33’s got the right idea. Make it look real, but reference no real body.

I feel that EFF / ACLU “endorsements” would not fool cops, they know who the ACLU is, generally despise them, and wouldn’t care to respect its alleged authority anyways. Furthermore, probably having BoingBoing / EFF / ACLU endorsed passes of some type probably presents a liability problem for these orgs. I don’t want any of them getting in trouble.

So yeah, I have no design skills, but hook me up with a Franklin Mint Photography License if you do!

(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this sectionâ€”
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document…

Well, if the police are lying about your rights as a photographer, no one busts them. Still, I think encouraging people to do something illegal as a means of protest ought to at least come with the information that “Yes this is illegal, and here are the penalties” instead of “Who knows if it’s legal to carry one of these — probably about as legal as taking away your camera and erasing your memory card for snapping a pic on the subway.”

It’s immature, irresponsible, and inconsiderate of the consequences to others.

Now, as long as the document is clearly not identification, but a license to do something (for which no license is necessary because everyone is allowed to do it), that seems more likely to be kosher. You could even some fine print in there that says “Photography License not valid without Government-issued identification”, which would serve the dual purpose of spelling out that it’s not ID, and of making it seem more acceptable to authoritarian ignoramuses – by giving them an opportunity to cross-check your ID with the license, you offer them a way out of the situation that leaves both their self-importance and your camera intact.

I know Saskatchewan used to have your driving license be a separate document from your provincial ID – the license was proof that Joe Schmoe was allowed to drive, and the ID was proof that you were Joe Schmoe. I kind of think some US states might also do that, but I don’t know. It makes sense, right – just because your driving license is expired, it doesn’t affect your identity.

Typically people just put the two back-to-back in a clear plastic sleeve, but the license was still a separate document, and clearly not ID.

If this is for aviation and transportation photographers, you are doing ALL OF US a disservice! This will simply make DHS and other officials more suspicious that we are trying to do MORE than our LEGAL rights (photography from public locations, etc.) and attempting to conceal more sinister motives. It’s probably illegal and I’d bet a good deal of my own aviation photography resources that if an officer is wise enough to recognize it’s a fake, you’ll lose more than your photography equipment. Best wishes, but don’t count on them…

when you get hassled illegally there’s a good chance you can sue. The officer might get punished. But at the end of the day he goes home. Its been a problem for NYC, and the city is getting kind of pissed at their law enforcement.

when you use this illegally, well. Have fun.

Not all boing boing users read the comments. Sweet christ please update the description so less intelligent readers don’t try this stunt.

I’d love something like this too, but probably not with the federal logos on it. If it looks professional, printed on plastic, with something generic like “Press Pass: Unrestricted” or even “Photography License” would be sufficient.

I’ve been harassed blocks from my house for taking pictures of local buildings. Bruiser security guard came out of a building into the street to threaten me with police, saying the local hospital was a high security area. I am not so good at explaining myself, which usually makes things far worse. I also take pictures of freaking everything.

Then all it’s saying is the truth — that you are a photographer — but all the official-looking stuff, particularly the “A1 – Unrestricted,” look sufficiently official to make the average rent-a-cop shut up.

Actually, probably 95% of rent-a-cops wouldn’t shut up, because they believe that their power is always more than yours, but these same 95% would phone in the “Homeland Security” version, and then you’ll be in much bigger trouble.

Andy Ihnatko had an article in Make magazine 5 on getting in as a press photographer. It is more than a fake pass. You have to dress the part. The same tricks might help a little with the cops. In Boston, blinking lights can get you hauled away. So if you want to take pictures, don’t be obvious. Play with your camera. Shoot from the hip. My camera has a movable LCD.
That is not the point here, I know. I just don’t like to challenge authority directly. But I will get my picture.

The solution to this cop/photography problem is simple economics. If the cop oversteps their authority, then let them do it, and sue their department’s pants off in the resulting civil action.

Once enough departments have been hit with expensive civil rights lawsuits, then it will become in their own best interest to make sure their cops know their place. Make their actions hurt their bottom line, and they will change their own behavior.

As creative and hilarious an idea this is, I’d be awful careful about putting it into practice. Most states (all that I know of) have an “unsworn falsification to authorities” statute which makes it at least a misdemeanor to submit to a government agent documents known to be false.

COV 18.2-204.2. Facsimile or manufacture, sale, etc., or possession of fictitious, simulated official license or identification.

* It is illegal to possess, produce or distribute a falsified document that can be mistaken as an official government document.
* Violators face Class 1 misdemeanor charges for the sale or production of such ID and Class 2 misdemeanor charges for possession of such ID.

US Law says it’s illegal if:
“the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document”
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1028.html)

so if this were redone to be from some fictional Photography Agency rather than from the government (kind of like the MUNI one), it would be perfectly legal.

On “May 15, 2009 2:17 AM” you posted:
{Done! Thanks for the link.} concerning the DHS Photography License.
As the link has been removed, could you PLEASE e-mail me either a copy of the file, or a link to it (if one is available).sam.sumner@juno.com
I don’t want to use it as seen, but would like to use the template to make some changes.
THANKS!

From a legality standpoint this document could potentially land you in deep trouble. The likelihood that it will land you in trouble depends largely on the circumstances, and how big a stink you make, and how big a stink the cop makes, and what a potential prosecuter thinks about the amount of fiber he has been eating recently.

This is a good idea, a card that presents the same gravitas (very official looking) but has been designed specifically with fraud laws in mind would probably be safest, and totally awesome. Which says in fine print it is not for identification purposes, and refers to a bogus US department of photographers or such. Simply stating that this person has the legal right to photograph public buildings in public areas under the authority of the federal government (that’s absolutely true).

Clever and industrious mutants could cook up a fully convincing web-site with registries and everything for officers of the law to verify your creditials.

It would be a more involved scam, but would probably serve the very important purpose of protecting citizens from imaginary laws using an imaginary ID which simply states we have constitutional rights our well-meaniing jack booted officers of peace have forgotten about.

I would do this if I was in the states, canada or britain, but I’m not. So, it’s up to someone in this discussion to do it. Or maybe a bunch of you.

Someone here should create a civil, private organisation in your country that issues a license to take photographs.
Your organisation would become a private corporation chartered to issue it’s members the right to take photographs in public places.

Set up a website, a registry and an printing service. Your modest costs will be covered by the people who purchase licenses.

Upon some kind of registration, issue a license to take photos in public. Have an agreement that goes something like this:

“You hereby agree to stay within the limits of the law when taking photographs.”
Failure to uphold the contract could result in, I dunno, lets say the loss of the right to bear your certificate of license.

Just because someone doesn’t have your bit of paper doesn’t mean that they don’t have a legal right to photograph. It just means that they don’t have the right to carry your bit of paper.

If you are questioned by a law officer, no deception is neccessary. Upon being asked for your license to take photo’s, you can show them one.

I’m sure that this idea is very rough, and could do with some polishing.

Legal issues aside, this is on the wrong side of the plain/ostentatious scale.

The most important badges and IDS are usually completely boring to look at. Casino employee badges, for instance, take a full background check and are even more conclusive than a driver’s license or state-issued ID. They’re also plain as hell. I’m pretty sure they don’t even have your picture on them.

#54 posted by jonathan_v, May 15, 2009 8:43 AM
Also, 146.d
Every person who sells or gives to another a membership card, badge, or other device, where it can be reasonably inferred by the recipient that display of the device will have the result that the law will be enforced less rigorously as to such person than would otherwise be the case is guilty of a misdemeanor.

jonathan_v, In NY it is normal for an officer to give members of his family 1/4 sized replica badges. You carry the badge so it can be seen as soon as you open your wallet. It changes the entire tone of certain conversations.

This is a cute idea that could end up with really horrible consequences for someone, Cory. Making up a fake government agency (preferably one that doesn’t actually claim that they’re part of a real governmental body in a “Franklin Mint” kind of way) might be legal; this, I’m guessing not so much.

I agree with most of the above comments – this is a dangerous trick that might work in some cases, but in most cases will escalate the situation in most cases, and probably create a real criminal liability where none existed before. Any rent-a-cop or real cop who is going to try to take away your camera or stop you from filming something just because they don’t approve of it is certainly not going to hesitate to take you downtown for presenting a fake ID.

That said I think the same effect could be achieved with a “Constitutional” license that would be defensible on the grounds that the 1st amendment does, in fact, grant an artistic license. You might still end up in the tank overnight, but you’d probably avoid criminal action and you might even get a nice settlement out of it.

They want to see papers, even non-existent papers?
Show it to them!
What are they going to do? Ask their supervisor on a radio to verify the license number?
Then they would have to admit that there is no such license required.

I kind of love this, but I’m too chickenshit to use something like this or even to challenge a security guard, like the ones who just last week told me I had to erase the photos I had just taken of an oil refinery “because of terrorism.” What, you mean like the ones they have on the front page of the company web site??? I did say, “Okay, but will you admit that this is ridiculous?” They didn’t.

Attempting to mislead a government officer, even one who is wrongly hassling you, is a very bad idea, folks. Posting this is incredibly irresponsible of BoingBoing, and as for this:

Who knows if it’s legal to carry one of these….

I do. It’s perfectly legal to carry one. But it’s not even remotely legal to present it to a cop and pretend it’s real. Again: Even if you’re being wrongly hassled under a law that doesn’t exist, that doesn’t let you show a fake ID to a cop.

Still waiting for an “IAAL” comment– any attorneys care to weigh in? Lots of speculation, and I personally think it’s too specific in terms of mentioning DHS.

Seems like this should not be presented to actual law enforcement, but I’d have no problem presenting it to ATM fillers, MUNI fare enforcers, and private security guards.

Suggestions:
1) Use a fictitious agency, or misspell DHS’s full name and use a made up insignia,
2) Print a disclaimer in (very) fine print,
3) Print REAL legal information on the back outlining REAL photographers’ rights, such as statutes or precedents which uphold peoples’ right to photography,
4) Print REAL legal information about the limited rights of private security officers to confiscate cameras or to demand that photos be erased.

BOTTOM LINE: The best card to have in your wallet is simply that of an actual attorney– if a professional of any kind is trying to violate your rights, have a professional at the ready to protect them.

Arkizzle @24: Yeah, I read the link, and I totally agree that that’s what the law says (once you get through the legalese). It’s just that Pasketti cropped the quote in an amusing fashion: “knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is … an identification document or authentication feature of the United States”.

Anyway. The last sentence already implies that this wouldn’t be legal, but it could probably be significantly stronger.

Yes, the ACLU or EFF should sell laminated photography license cards as a fund-raiser. I’d buy one. And it wouldn’t be illegal, because it would be completely accurate and not misleading as to who was making the assertion.

Agreeing with most above: bullshit surveillance-avoidance kabuki theater is not an appropriate, rational, legal, or productive response to bullshit surveillance kabuki theater. It does present an interesting DIY cracked mirror image of what we’re all decrying, though: lies, opacity, deception, abuse of law. An odd suggestion: fight Big Brother by badly imitating abuses of state power!

Everybody’s worrying about whether it’s legal to show one of these, given that it doesn’t exist. Meh, whatever. The real problem here is, if you get bothered by Mr. Annoying Cop and show him this, and he goes away, what happens to the NEXT photographer he bothers? You know, the one who doesn’t have one of these.

Done! Thanks for the link. How delightfully Kafka-esque, responding to their bureaucracy with such countermeasures!

Although, to be honest, I’ve taken plenty of photos in airports, subway stations, um… bus stops… city streets, pretty much anywhere I want, and I’ve never been challenged. I understand London has a problem with this, but perhaps this kind of harassment is still quite rare in the US.

Well, now I’ll have my card in case I’m challenged.

But I’ve got an even better idea: what about a “Press Pass”? Can Boing-Boing issue us all a “Journalistic Press Pass” to take photos of police in action? This would have the advantage of being above-board (instead of counterfeit). Also, “Press Pass” is something your average cop is likely to have heard of. Just suggesting! =D

IAAL, and this is a really stupid idea. Forging a government-issued ID – whether state or federal – is a felony. And no, misspelling DHS’s full name or putting in disclaimers will not save you. The intent here is to create a document that will deceive police officers into thinking you have a government-issued ID. It doesn’t matter if the forgery is good or bad or would actually fool anyone.

I also agree with #52. It’s really irresponsible for this post to stay up without updating it to reflect the legal concerns.

That ID seems like it’s coming a little close to impersonating a federal officer, which I’m fairly sure is illegal. I’m sure that in some cases, it would work perfectly, but whether this would actually constitute breaking the law or not, there’ll be plenty of cops who will phone this in to the station, especially if it means dealing with some pesky photographer/terrorist.

I think I like #1’s idea, although it’d really be best if it was set up with some sort of number you could call and get some dull office answering machine. “Hello, you’ve reached Boing Boing. For photography division, press 1,” etc.

I agree with #2.. it seems to me that you would be turning the problem of taking a photograph into one of being charged with impersonating a federal officer, and at the very least you would be bothered by the federal authorities.

I really just want to know why our government is chock full of fucking idiots.

I mean, the whole damn thing is bursting with apex-grade fools.

Does a badge make the average American reach down inside himself, rip out and wear the worst jerk he can find?

I’m wearing a badge walking a beat at the local train station and some emaciated, white-lipped nerd-geek-thing comes up with an iphone I’m pulling the bicep out and flexing the fucker to give him the best shot.

Am I missing something here, America??!

Where the FUCK is Davey Crockett?
Where the FCUK is Abe Lincoln and Pecos Fucking Bill?

Cops, real and faux, are shivering, scared fucks with absolutely no character what-so-fucking-ever.

Where are the balls in this country to be a damn human being with a badge??!!

Some one has to clarify the legal status of this. I mean its not stating that you are a federal employee in any way is it??? Its simply a license that appears as if it is issued by DHS. It isn’t stating something that is illegal or misinforming. I mean its like what they do on hidden camera shows by using a fictitious law enforcement departments. I mean movie studios hire retired cops (that wear their old uniforms) as security guards on locations shoots. Wouldn’t that be considered impersonating a police officer???

Mesrop, even though it doen’t say you are a federal employee, it does purport to be issued by a real body, featuring real logos/seals. So even if you aren’t breaking the law by taking photos, you might be breaking an entirely different law by using ID that pretends to be issued by the government and uses their registered marks.

Someone is gonna have a vist from the federal swat team. Someone made a facsimile of a purported government ID with intent to commit fraud (even though with harmless intentions) and deceive officials. Impersonation of a Federal Officer. Too late to withdraw, it’s on the net and somebody is toast. I’d like to defend the case but I’m a continent away. As they say in the Navy, stand by for the ram! As Mister T said: “I pity the poor fool!”

I have had the experience of using My US Federal badge (NOAA) with several cops, one time as an excuse to be taking picture of the local subway however they still wanted me to hit the road.

For one if you have any kind of federal ID you had to go through a background check and your name is in a cop’s computer almost all cruisers have them, and it shows up right way. so if you do use a fake id beware they can tell right way if it is real or not

Is it illegal to produce a fake license when there is no such thing as a license, though?

It clearly can’t be forgery because the original document does not exist; it’s fictional.

You’re not impersonating anyone or claiming that you have special powers, because it clearly says “license” — and in any case you are giving yourself the right to do something that you had the right to do, anyway.

In the UK, though, if you sort of squint and look sideways, it might be seen as fraud. Fraud isn’t about what it says on the card, but what your intent is in showing it.

by playing by made up rules you only make them more real and concrete and likely to become real laws. whether or not you got away with it other citizens watching would assume they saw a real incident involving real laws and photographer identification and come to accept that kind of thing readily when they are stopped someday from taking pics in a public place. rent-a-swine or real donutholes who pull that crap will only feel more justified to do it more often in the future. so even if you get away with it everyone loses.

the thing to do is refuse to participate with bullshit in any form. take a stand and dont play their games.

If using department of homeland security logo makes it illegal because it pretends to come from the government. Then how about issuing a ID from the office of photography licences or something like that.

How about the EFF or ACLU produce a “photography” rights card that looks sort of like an id card but simply informs of rights to photograph. If you have a particularly dumb rent-a-cop he may back down, and if you have a particularly smart cop you may teach him a little. the middle of the road guys weren’t gonna listen to the fake id anyway :)

it doesn’t matter what the bit of paper says you are allowed to do, it’s that you are reproducing government-issued trademarks / designs, and tightly controlled ones (I’d imagine) at that.

“Fraud isn’t about what it says on the card, but what your intent is in showing it.”

Tangentially (eg. not strictly fraud); printing money is illegal, whether you were planning on spending it or not.

I’d have to go with Tordr, to be completely in the clear (eg. not making more trouble for yourself than the original photography did) you’d have to do this with the permission of the named body, or make one up.

I’d imagine the photographers associations would possibly back a scheme like this. Or better, go with the BoingBoing press pass mentioned above.

If the EFF creates a permit under a non-profit for a fundraiser. I’ll buy a couple. So will the photography groups that I belong too.
I’m sure they can make it legal to use. No real department, no offical logos.

IANAL but I am a cop. Carrying something like this is stupid and constitutes possession of a forged instrument in – more than likely – all 50 states. I do know it’s a felony offense in New York State. This would be an absolutely ground-ball arrest for any cop. The only missing would be your written and signed confession to seal the deal.

If you are really that concerned about being arrested for non-existent antiterrorism photography laws then I certainly cannot fathom why you would present a feloniously forged instrument to a law enforcement officer, because the laws against that are most certainly very existent.

Howdy,
Matthew Williams has a link in the article wrong. The page he points to for Bert Krages tells you where to buy a book with the name he gave. There is nothing to download and print, as was suggested. Mr Krages has another page with a pamphlet called “The Photographerâ€™s Right” that you can download and print. It is at:http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
There is no link to the pamphlet on the page mentioned. I found it by going to google and following a couple of levels of links. Since it was not obvious, I thought I should point it out here.

I won’t print one of the ID cards, but it is a cute idea and makes a good point.

I would have commented on Mr Williams site, but it is too much trouble to create an account on an individual blog just to comment. I have a boingboing account, but just choose not to use it, usually.
Good day

Presenting it is one offense like #37 wrote.
However manufacture and even possession are also offenses.

Even though its a novelty, you’re creating/forging a fake document and presenting it as valid id from a federal agency. Even if you wrote “novelty” on it, case law shows that you would be prosecuted.

This is commonly called something like “Manufacture, Sale, Or Possession of Fictitious, Simulated Official License or Identification”.

In some states its a misdemeanor. In others its a felony.

Just change “Department of Homeland Security” to “Association of Licensed Photographers” or something like that, so you’re not implying that it’s a government id. Then you’re fine. But when you imply that its Government issued, you are clearly braking the law.

It is illegal to possess, produce or distribute a falsified document that can be mistaken as an official government document.
Violators face Class 1 misdemeanor charges for the sale or production of such ID and Class 2 misdemeanor charges for possession of such ID.

California

Penal Code section 529.5

(a) Every person who manufactures, sells, offers for sale,
or transfers any document, not amounting to counterfeit, purporting
to be a government-issued identification card or driver’s license,
which by virtue of the wording or appearance thereon could reasonably
deceive an ordinary person into believing that it is issued by a
government agency, and who knows that the document is not a
government-issued document, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
(b) Any person who, having been convicted of a violation of
subdivision (a), is subsequently convicted of a violation of
subdivision (a), is punishable for the subsequent conviction by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
(c) Any person who possesses a document described in subdivision
(a) and who knows that the document is not a government-issued
document is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less
than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and not more than two thousand
five hundred dollars ($2,500). The misdemeanor fine shall be imposed
except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would be
served. The court may allow an offender to work off the fine by
doing community service. If community service work is not available,
the misdemeanor shall be punishable by a fine of up to one thousand
dollars ($1,000), based on the person’s ability to pay.
(d) If an offense specified in this section is committed by a
person when he or she is under 21 years of age, but is 13 years of
age or older, the court also may suspend the person’s driving
privilege for one year, pursuant to Section 13202.5 of the Vehicle
Code.

Also, 146.d
Every person who sells or gives to another a membership card,
badge, or other device, where it can be reasonably inferred by the
recipient that display of the device will have the result that the
law will be enforced less rigorously as to such person than would
otherwise be the case is guilty of a misdemeanor.

It is worthwhile to note that State statutes may prohibit false statements and/or the use of false identification cards. Interviews with State alcohol law enforcement officials confirm our legal analysis: a statute that prohibits the use of false statements includes by inference the use of a false identification card. In other words, presenting a false identification card is equivalent to making a false statement.

I wonder if it’s illegal in the US to use a web site to encourage people to break the law?

First, misspelling the name of the agency is one of the ways we spot fake IDs where I work. Two days ago a dude had a moderately convincing driver’s license except that “Department of Motor Vehicles” wasn’t capitalized.

Second, ideas like this make me glad we have ID card printers on hand.